Re: Res: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale

From: stlatos
Message: 50395
Date: 2007-10-21

--- In, "tonsls" <ton.sales@...> wrote:
> --- In, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > But doesn't the form galondrina also exist? It seems that
> > *arondrina existed in Iberia first, with met. in Portuguese but
> > dissim. r>l, then contamination with gallina 'hen' in Spanish, then
> > (in most dia.?) assim. a-o > o-o.
> >
> >> It's possible that er > ar was an intermediate stage of er > r in
> > those environments where e>0 would occur, but was sometimes
> > preserved when met. or analogy occurred (or maybe it was just
> > sporadic).
> >
> What you say is probably true (though the details of the process will
> remain unprovable, I suspect).

> (I even doubt the possible contamination with
> gallina that you point out --too dissimilar birds, I think, to
> interfere-- unlike the larks and swallows.)

Folk etymology can operate between words with no relation to each
other at all; two birds with -al-ina seem ripe for
cross-contamination, no matter what kinds they are.

> > *passero+ > pajaro (if *ssr wasn't allowed at the time,
> > so e>0 couldn't occur).
> >
> For that, I think the usual explanation (i.e. that Spanish tends to
> make an -a- out of the penultimate vowel in first-syllable stress
> trisyllabic words such as relámpago or ciénaga, in application of the
> "law of typical word-finals") is more natural than looking for some
> phonetic rationalization (which, I'm sorry to confess, reminds me in
> this case of Procust's bed).

The reasons for my support of a specific sound change include:

cicer(e+) ... passer(e+)
cicero+ ..... passero+
kYikYero+ ... passero+
tsitsero+ ... passero+
tsitsYaro+ .. pasYsYaro+
tsYitsYaro+ . pasYsYaro+
ts^its^aro+ . pas^s^aro+
ts^its^aro+ . pas^aro+

chícharo .... pájaro

That is, it seems the change e>a transfered the feature +front to a
preceding fricative or affricate, which became alveopalatal if not
touching another C.